On July Fourth, President Trump signed his budget bill into law. Americans now face cuts to our already meager social safety net. The widening holes in our safety net fall especially hard on women, whom we have long relied on to fill them. In 2020, sociologist and Roosevelt Fellow Jessica Calarco went viral for saying, “Other countries have social safety nets. The US has women.” We sat down with Jessica to discuss her work and how she thinks we can organize to build a more fair and caring economy and politics.
The national income is about $24.7 trillion, so the EITC is less than 0.3% of all income, and the Supplemental Poverty Measure shows 41.3% of household/citizens live with less than 2.0 times the Official Poverty Level. And 200% of OFL is still economic hardship or poverty for all of the 41.3% of households.
My general point is that making the EITC more generous would easily relieve the burdens of low-income families and women.
My understanding is that the distribution of income has shifted enormously since 1976. The lower 90% received about 63% of pre-tax income in 1976 and now receive about 48%, a drop of 15%. It comes to 15% of $24. 7 trillion -- $3.7 trillion. (See RealTimeInequality.org) Divide the $3.7 trillion among 126 million families, it's over $29,000 per household. That's pre-tax. If we had the 1976 ratios of distribution post-tax, all 126 milllion households earning less than $200,000, the lower 90%, would have $17,460 more per household.
RealTimeIneq. shows the average pre-tax income for 90% is $63K, the average for the top 10% is $641K. Post-tax the 90% average income is $78K, and the top 10% average is $503K, about 6.4 times higher than the lower 90%. Again, the point is this gap is too great.
If we had the 1976 ratio, post-tax income, the lower 90% would increase its average post-tax income from $78,000 to $95,460.
I enjoyed the article. I hope the politics it encourages takes hold and we find practical and affordable ways to restore much higher wages, a "living wage" for all workers. I should add, my blog is http://benL88.blogspot.com, Economics Without Greed, Part Two
I checked some numbers about the Earned Income Tax Credit. It looks like in 2024 the cost to the federal government was $63 billion (https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/tax-news/taxpayer-advocate-service-celebrates-50-years-of-the-earned-income-tax-credit/2025/01/).
The average amount received was $2,451, received by 23 million workers and families (https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit/eitc-reports-and-statistics) About 1 in 6 households received the EITC.
The national income is about $24.7 trillion, so the EITC is less than 0.3% of all income, and the Supplemental Poverty Measure shows 41.3% of household/citizens live with less than 2.0 times the Official Poverty Level. And 200% of OFL is still economic hardship or poverty for all of the 41.3% of households.
My general point is that making the EITC more generous would easily relieve the burdens of low-income families and women.
My understanding is that the distribution of income has shifted enormously since 1976. The lower 90% received about 63% of pre-tax income in 1976 and now receive about 48%, a drop of 15%. It comes to 15% of $24. 7 trillion -- $3.7 trillion. (See RealTimeInequality.org) Divide the $3.7 trillion among 126 million families, it's over $29,000 per household. That's pre-tax. If we had the 1976 ratios of distribution post-tax, all 126 milllion households earning less than $200,000, the lower 90%, would have $17,460 more per household.
RealTimeIneq. shows the average pre-tax income for 90% is $63K, the average for the top 10% is $641K. Post-tax the 90% average income is $78K, and the top 10% average is $503K, about 6.4 times higher than the lower 90%. Again, the point is this gap is too great.
If we had the 1976 ratio, post-tax income, the lower 90% would increase its average post-tax income from $78,000 to $95,460.
I enjoyed the article. I hope the politics it encourages takes hold and we find practical and affordable ways to restore much higher wages, a "living wage" for all workers. I should add, my blog is http://benL88.blogspot.com, Economics Without Greed, Part Two